Australian science: good but not good enough

We may punch above our weight in some research areas, but we need to aim higher, says Professor Ian Chubb, Australia's chief scientist.

By Professor Ian Chubb

Aim higher: Australia produces about 3 per cent of the world's research output from 0.3 per cent of the world's population, but we rank around 9th or 10th in the world. (Source: PeskyMonkey/iStockPhoto)

Asking ourselves difficult questions is never an easy thing to do.

We might find that we don't like the answers because one of the consequences of honest self-reflection is that we often need to change.

We've seen this occur in sport when a team which did not meet expectations embarks on a major post-mortem in order to identify its weaknesses and improve its performance.

Or we can avoid the question altogether. We can, if we choose, happily believe that we 'punch above our weight' — as we do in research — and since we never ask about the weight class we are happy with the thought. Is that good enough?

I have not known any rating system to be beyond question. There is usually some aspect that makes each one less than perfect (apart from one's own position); and there are those who would argue that if a method is not perfect, there is no point using it. Would we not be better off, they imply, just not knowing? Then we can pull the comfort blanket all the way up to our chin and we can snuggle up and be happy.

Punch above our weight?

We don't make the assumption that we are looking at information so precise that it is simply a factor to fit into an equation, but we do need information sufficiently robust to form a judgement.

By averaging over large data sets, idiosyncratic elements largely cancel each other because they appear in the returns from all countries. Perfectly cancelled? No; but we are not looking for the second decimal point, we are looking for the signpost.

We started by looking at the 'we punch above our weight' line. It is true that we produce about 3 per cent of the world's research output from 0.3 per cent of the world's population. Sounds good; is good. But the ratio puts us somewhere like 9th or 10th in the world. By that count, we do 'punch above our weight', but is it in the class we want to be?

Then we looked at citations per research paper. The objections to this approach are well known, and we know them, too. But unless Australia's research profile is uniquely dominated by work on country-specific topics, or in fields where low citations dominate, and any other unique characteristic, inter-country comparisons are informative.

When we used research outputs from several countries over a 15-year period, it is clear that Australia does not out-perform most of the countries with an embedded scientific culture and systems of governance that we might be like, say, many of the Western European countries, Scandinavia, the United States, and Canada.

A supplement to our main paper shows that the citation rates of 30 per cent of Australian papers are above the European average while more than half are below the world average citation rate.

So while our best researchers are up among the best, we do appear to have a long tail.

We could, if we chose, ignore the implications. We could argue that the metric isn't good enough; or we could do what we often do, find another way to massage the data to identify a new fraction that works in our favour. And we could snuggle under the blanket in a state of blissful self-denial. But that would be a bit like cheating at solitaire.

Or we could ask ourselves that hard question: what can we do to do better?

What can we do better?

Research support in Australia is rationed — it always has been — and most likely always will be. Then we add the processes of ranking embedded within most elements of a rationed system. We do not have a strategic approach maximising the impact of our research budget.

One answer is to do what most of the countries that out-perform us do: focus on a selection of priority areas first rather than assume they will be supported adequately as we continue to spread our funding thinly as a matter of course.

We are presently working on a process that, if adopted, will result in a suite of research priorities that will focus and influence government spending patterns. It will still be competitive, and still based on merit.

Establishing priorities will enable the Government to ensure that there is adequate investment in areas of research that are simply more important than others to national wellbeing — right now. They will ensure that Australian research is directed towards addressing matters that are most immediately important to our people, our economy, and our future prosperity. And ensure that they are supported well enough to enable researchers of the top rank to produce work of the highest quality.

The priority areas should be the focus of a proportion of government research and development spending. Not all of it. Our funding must always include support for basic, curiosity-driven research. This is the work that will continue to contribute to the bank of knowledge on which we can draw to meet the challenges of the future. And our efforts must always include support for research in all disciplines — within priority areas and without.

But Australia should be setting strategic research priorities, and focusing funding, something that already happens in countries like Scandinavia, the US and the EU. They know where they do research and they know they do it well.

We should not be happy under our blanket because we don't know what we should know. We should instead ask the question we know we need to ask. And respond.

About the author:Professor Ian Chubb is the Chief Scientist for Australia. Prior to his appointment he was the Vice Chancellor of the Australian National University.

Peter :

Ken Winkel :

20 Mar 2013 6:29:06pm

Hi Peter,

What is your reference for that research spending as a % of GDP ? It would be interesting to adjust the numbers as discussed by Ian Chubb by the spending - perhaps we would come out as much stronger than his simplistic analysis implies.

Steve :

20 Mar 2013 10:14:24pm

The paper “BENCHMARKING AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE PERFORMANCE” gives a pretty good ‘signpost’ view of Australia’s efforts around basic research. I congratulate you on this first step of ‘honest self-reflection’. But if our research institutions are going to make a stronger case for investment from the Government they need to look a little broader. Scientific research is much more than paper production - it also includes translation (the number of patents might be a good measure) and commercialisation (the number of spin off companies might also be a good measure). Recent presentations at the National Press Club from our University Elite suggest that these aspects of our research institutions ‘punch well below our weight'. So the ‘blissful self-denial’ is much worse than even this report suggests.

The ‘breakthrough actions’ re the establishment of an Australian Innovation Council and helping business access publicly-funded research is a step in the right direction. But where is the continuous improvement loop cycling between business (& govt services) and translational research so that both parties proactively drive and benefit from each other rather than working in isolation ?

Having looked into Neuroscience in particular we appear to be diving deeper & deeper into niches that are clearly of little relevance to the rest of the world. Despite having spun off one of the most successful companies with direct relevance in this domain – Cochlear. In this field in particular we don’t have a backlog of research we have a backlog of translation. There are many great ideas locked away in dusty old papers, while we write even more papers !!! There is much we can do to improve the education of our children in school and the productivity of our ageing population. Both big government problems RIGHT NOW that need translation and commercialisation initiatives. As a business owner I’m continually frustrated in trying to get neuroscientists to look up from their microscopes and see where they can more effectively participate in society’s existing needs. These areas are ripe for mutual benefit and continuous improvement.

Let’s kick the comfort blanket right off and take an even deeper look at where we’re really at. Or maybe we prefer not asking these much harder questions and it’s better ‘just not knowing’.

Maree :

21 Mar 2013 8:24:51am

Great article often funded "Reasearch Projects" do not contribute to the current priority issues of our country. Too many $ spent on sport when medical and environmental agricultural research should be prioritized.

MikeS :

21 Mar 2013 2:34:13pm

Citation rates will always be a very blunt instrument for assessing the value of research to those who fund it. For example, research publications that are directly relevant to North American or European populations will always receive much higher citation rates than research that is directly relevant to Australians, because we have a very much smaller population and research sector. That will make Australian-focussed research look like it is under-performing, when in fact it may actually be focussed on issues that directly concern us. Decisions on how we allocate research investment must move beyond the simplicity of metrics that do not take our regional interests into account. Research in Australia is (or should be) a lot more than just trying to compete on some international stage, it should be about things that are relevant to our society, not Northern American or European society.

Michael :

21 Mar 2013 4:29:25pm

Seems to me the article raises more questions than it answers-who works out priorities based on what and who lobbies the government-something poorly done in the past. These questions have been around for decades. The article does not mention CSIRO which is supposed to be our scientific flag ship but seems to have got itself beached by being more heavily involved in the debate around funding cuts. Why doesn't the article mention astronomy where we are internationally recognised and where our top Astronomer has created a good public image by appearing on radio and tV shows and keeping the average citizen informed of new developments. Science is no longer the area for the Boffin. Something Asimov pioneered in the 50's with his "Science for the Citizen" and recognised by people such as Carl Sagen, the US Presidential advisor on Science decades ago. Why is it that two CSIRO scientisit had to leave the CSIRO to continue ground breaking research into cancer (featured in an "Australian Story" program last year). Why is it that some of our best research has ended up overseas for profitable production (over the horizon radar). It appears Barry Jones's vision of our "smart" future is disappearing -why, because we seem to still be stuck on working out some of the fundamentals.